George C. Banks

Promoting an open research culture

Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6).

A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective.

We reviewed studies of the Dark Triad (DT) personality traits--Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-and meta-analytically examined their implications for job performance and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Relations among the DT traits and behaviors were extracted from original reports published between 1951 and 2011 of 245 independent samples (N = 43,907). We found that reductions in the quality of job performance were consistently associated with increases in Machiavellianism and psychopathy and that CWB was associated with increases in all 3 components of the DT, but that these associations were moderated by such contextual factors as authority and culture. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the DT explains moderate amounts of the variance in counterproductivity, but not job performance. The results showed that the 3 traits are positively related to one another but are sufficiently distinctive to warrant theoretical and empirical partitioning.

Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences

Publication bias poses multiple threats to the accuracy of meta-analytically derived effect sizes and related statistics. Unfortunately, a review of the literature indicates that unlike meta-analytic reviews in medicine, research in the organizational sciences tends to pay little attention to this issue. In this article, the authors introduce advances in meta-analytic techniques from the medical and related sciences for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of publication bias. The authors illustrate their use on a data set on employment interview validities. Using multiple methods, including contour-enhanced funnel plots, trim and fill, Egger’s test of the intercept, Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation, meta-regression, cumulative meta-analysis, and selection models, the authors find limited evidence of publication bias in the studied data.

The Chrysalis Effect

The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.”

A Meta-analytic Test of Redundancy and Relative Importance of the Dark Triad and Five Factor Model of Personality

We examined the relationships between Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy-the three traits of the Dark Triad (DT)-and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. The review identified 310 independent samples drawn from 215 sources and yielded information pertaining to global trait relationships and facet-level relationships. We used meta-analysis to examine (a) the bivariate relations between the DT and the five global traits and 30 facets of the FFM, (b) the relative importance of each of the FFM global traits in predicting DT, and (c) the relationship between the DT and FFM facets identified in translational models of narcissism and psychopathy. These analyses identified consistent and theoretically meaningful associations between the DT traits and the facets of the FFM. The five traits of the FFM, in a relative importance analysis, accounted for much of the variance in Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, respectively, and facet-level analyses identified specific facets of each FFM trait that were consistently associated with narcissism (e.g., angry/hostility, modesty) and psychopathy (e.g., straightforwardness, deliberation). The FFM explained nearly all of the variance in psychopathy (R(2) c  = .88) and a substantial portion of the variance in narcissism (R(2) c  = .42).

SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.

Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6).

Promoting an open research culture: Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility

Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are readily recognized as vital features of science (1, 2). When asked, most scientists embrace these features as disciplinary norms and values (3). Therefore, one might expect that these valued features would be routine in daily practice. Yet, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case (4–6).

Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management A Guest Commentary

The discussion regarding questionable research practices (QRPs) in management as well as the broader natural and social sciences has increased substantially in recent years. Despite the attention, questions remain regarding research norms and the implications for both theoretical and practical advancements. The aim of the current article is to address these issues in a question-and-answer format while drawing upon both past research and the results of a series of new studies conducted using a mixed-methods design. Our goal is to encourage a systematic, collegial, and constructive dialogue regarding QRPs in management research.

Publication Bias in Strategic Management Research

Publication bias is the systematic suppression of research findings due to small magnitude, statistical insignificance, or contradiction of prior findings or theory. We review possible reasons why publication bias may exist in strategy research and examine empirical evidence regarding the influence of publication bias in the field. Overall, we conclude that publication bias affects many, but not all, topics in strategic management research. Correlation inflation due to publication bias ranged in magnitude from .00, indicating no bias, to .19, representing considerable bias. These results suggest that caution should be exercised when interpreting scientific conclusions regarding certain determinants of firm performance, while greater confidence may be expressed in others. We discuss how publication bias can be addressed both philosophically and empirically in the domain of strategy.

Publication Bias: The Antagonist of Meta-Analytic Reviews and Effective Policymaking

This article offers three contributions for conducting meta-analytic reviews in education research. First, we review publication bias and the challenges it presents for meta-analytic researchers. Second, we review the most recent and optimal techniques for evaluating the presence and influence of publication bias in meta-analyses. We then re-analyze two sets of meta-analytic data from the literacy literature that have been published in different journals. The analyses serve as case examples of the techniques reviewed, and the results demonstrate a range of findings from noticeable instances of publication bias to minimal or no bias. The conclusions have important implications for research, policymaking, and practice. Finally, we discuss recommendations for future research.